It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Bush lied, people died" "Obama killed, we were thrilled"

page: 1
36
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+20 more 
posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I feel like we were lied into the Iraq war. I felt like the Afghani war was worthless, and continues to be so.

I thought Bush and the neocons were disgusting. I told people in my life how terrible these wars were. By no means do I think that war can never be justified; but there should be a high threshold, and we should be honest with the reasons.

I found that as a college student, these opinions were very popular. My peers mostly agreed with me. Almost all of my professors did. All of my favorite musicians and celebrities were with me. They rocked against Bush. They made movies against Bush.

Even much of the media, which was complicit in the lead up to these wars, ended up agreeing with me. They said they wouldnt be fooled again.

"Bush lied, People died"

It was a mantra that told everyone that people would not stand for these nation building wars.

And on that wave of ending unjust wars, a hero came sweeping in. His name was Obama. He was a man of peace. In fact, he has a Nobel Peace prize to prove it. He was going to undue all of the damage done by that war criminal Bush, and we would all have someone to be proud of.

He sent a thrill up Chris Matthews leg!

No more unjust wars!

But then.....

The wars continued. New ones started. And something strange happened. Most of the people that were so vocal at their disgust of Bush and his wars said nothing.

No more albums against war crimes. No more celebrities calling out the new wars. No more professors telling their students about how these wars were evil. Suddenly, unjust nation building wars no longer seemed to be a big deal.

Why was this?

Thats when I learned the truth; most of the people screaming about the Iraq war were just virtue signalling. It was cool to hate Bush. But Obama was so cool, and smart, and he spoke so well. And he was Black! And he was a Democrat and man of peace! So if he was going to war, surely it must be just.

And the media; all of the sudden they told us that questioning these wars was a bad thing again.

How could I go from being popular on campus for my views on these wars, to becoming an outcast for calling out these same wars under Obama.

Libya, Syria? How dare I question this!

Now that Trump is back; its hip to fight against "war mongers" again. Celebrities are coming back out. Musicians are rapping about how bad trump is. The media is rabid.

Maybe they have found their conscious again.

Then enter this story.


In an interview with Qatari TV Wednesday, bin Jaber al-Thani revealed that his country, alongside Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United States, began shipping weapons to jihadists from the very moment events "first started" (in 2011).

Al-Thani even likened the covert operation to "hunting prey" - the prey being President Assad and his supporters - "prey" which he admits got away (as Assad is still in power; he used a Gulf Arabic dialect word, "al-sayda", which implies hunting animals or prey for sport). Though Thani denied credible allegations of support for ISIS, the former prime minister's words implied direct Gulf and US support for al-Qaeda in Syria (al-Nusra Front) from the earliest years of the war, and even said Qatar has "full documents" and records proving that the war was planned to effect regime change.


www.zerohedge.com...

The prime minister of Qatar when the syrian war started admits that he worked with the US to arm groups like al nursa at the start of the syrian war to oust Assad.

In other words, much like Gaddaffi, Assad was right and many of the "rebels" were actually terrorists being helped by the US.

Have you heard this on the news?

Now I grant that this prime minister could be lying. But isnt this news worthy?

Yet all of these anti war media people and others have no interest in this.

Why? Because they need a Russian boogey man.

This isnt saying Russia didnt interfere in the election, the most certainly at least attempted to (as did the UK, China, Israel, etc.)

But were are all of the anti war people? They said that Assad was lying; they said that the "rebels" the us was arming were natives of Syria that were just.

And now when the prime minister of Qatar admits thats not the case; no one talks about it.

remember when Trump said in the debates that he didnt understand why we were arming terrorists in syria, and we should work with the russians. All of those people of peace against war shouted NO!!! If we stop funding people in this war, we are bowing to Putin!

If Obama and Hillary did this, it must be cool.

I guess it just goes to show that war is only bad if a republican is doing it to many of these people.

Now be sure, there are great people on the left and right that call out all of this.

But for the rest, they want us to know.

"Bush lied, people died"

"Obama killed, we were thrilled"

edit on 31-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Here are the accounts of two witnesses of the Syrian war - no need to say that they seriously go against the official narative :

An Eyewitness to the Syrian Rebellion: Father Frans in His Own Words



An examination of texts published by Father Frans van der Lugt in 2011 and 2012 shows that the late Dutch Jesuit priest had a dim view of the Syrian rebellion, which he held to be the work of a violent minority, and favored a process of political reform in Syria to be implemented by the current government under President Bashar Al-Assad.

Father Frans was murdered under still unclarified circumstances in the embattled Syrian city of Homs earlier this month.(April 2014)

...

From the start, the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.

...

Moreover, from the start there has been the problem of the armed groups, which are also part of the opposition….The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government. Many representatives of the government (regeringsmensen – Father Frans might also be referring to supporters of the government) have been tortured and shot dead by them.

...

In the first place, it has to be said that it is very difficult to provide a nuanced and objective account of what is happening. Many journalists fall into describing matters in black and white. For them, good and evil are not interwoven, but are clearly separated. They demonize the one side and glorify the other. Thus, for example, it is not true that our (the Syrian) government has only bad sides and the opposition only good ones. But because the US, Europe and certain Arab countries support the opposition, they endeavor, whether consciously or unconsciously, to idealize it as much as possible, without engaging in any careful analysis of the real situation. Certain interests are obscuring our view of the real situation and contaminating the description of it.


Interview with Flemish priest in Syria: "Putin and Assad saved my life"


"The idea that a popular uprising took place against President Assad is completely false. I've been in Qara since 2010 and I have seen with my own eyes how agitators from outside Syria organized protests against the government and recruited young people. That was filmed and aired by Al Jazeera to give the impression that a rebellion was taking place. Murders were committed by foreign terrorists, against the Sunni and Christian communities, in an effort to sow religious and ethnic discord among the Syrian people. While in my experience, the Syrian people were actually very united.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler That was a great read sir. You have really givin me hope that we can work together. You are one amazing member of ATS




posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
I had brief and momentary hope for Obama. Then I realized he was little more than a pretty face (for half the people anyway) pretending to be a leader. It soon became clear that he was no progressive like conservatives like to see him. He was a neo-con in lamb's clothing, allowing the deep state machine to continue it's drive to world domination.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
And people act like obama was some socialist, weak lefty..

Obama was a left leaning neocon..

Hillary a moderate neocon..


+7 more 
posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

And drone strikes under Trump have quadrupled.

And he's sought to change rules of engagement to be more permissive of civilian casualties. And he's promised to dump large amounts of money into the military industrial complex. And he doesn't understand why we're not exploiting the mineral wealth of war-torn nations where we've militarily intervened. And he's still kissing Saudi ass. Let's not even get started with Erik Prince and his dreams of CIA-led merc armies around the globe.

SEALs are dying in Yemen, Green Berets are dying in Niger, the CIA is everywhere it ever was. What's different again?

Bush lied, people died. Obama killed, we were thrilled. Trump's as bad and you're not mad?



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
I feel like we were lied into the Iraq war. I felt like the Afghani war was worthless, and continues to be so.

I thought Bush and the neocons were disgusting. I told people in my life how terrible these wars were. By no means do I think that war can never be justified; but there should be a high threshold, and we should be honest with the reasons.

I found that as a college student, these opinions were very popular. My peers mostly agreed with me. Almost all of my professors did. All of my favorite musicians and celebrities were with me. They rocked against Bush. They made movies against Bush.

Even much of the media, which was complicit in the lead up to these wars, ended up agreeing with me. They said they wouldnt be fooled again.

"Bush lied, People died"

It was a mantra that told everyone that people would not stand for these nation building wars.

And on that wave of ending unjust wars, a hero came sweeping in. His name was Obama. He was a man of peace. In fact, he has a Nobel Peace prize to prove it. He was going to undue all of the damage done by that war criminal Bush, and we would all have someone to be proud of.

He sent a thrill up Chris Matthews leg!

No more unjust wars!

But then.....

The wars continued. New ones started. And something strange happened. Most of the people that were so vocal at their disgust of Bush and his wars said nothing.

No more albums against war crimes. No more celebrities calling out the new wars. No more professors telling their students about how these wars were evil. Suddenly, unjust nation building wars no longer seemed to be a big deal.

Why was this?

Thats when I learned the truth; most of the people screaming about the Iraq war were just virtue signalling. It was cool to hate Bush. But Obama was so cool, and smart, and he spoke so well. And he was Black! And he was a Democrat and man of peace! So if he was going to war, surely it must be just.

And the media; all of the sudden they told us that questioning these wars was a bad thing again.

How could I go from being popular on campus for my views on these wars, to becoming an outcast for calling out these same wars under Obama.

Libya, Syria? How dare I question this!

Now that Trump is back; its hip to fight against "war mongers" again. Celebrities are coming back out. Musicians are rapping about how bad trump is. The media is rabid.

Maybe they have found their conscious again.

Then enter this story.


In an interview with Qatari TV Wednesday, bin Jaber al-Thani revealed that his country, alongside Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United States, began shipping weapons to jihadists from the very moment events "first started" (in 2011).

Al-Thani even likened the covert operation to "hunting prey" - the prey being President Assad and his supporters - "prey" which he admits got away (as Assad is still in power; he used a Gulf Arabic dialect word, "al-sayda", which implies hunting animals or prey for sport). Though Thani denied credible allegations of support for ISIS, the former prime minister's words implied direct Gulf and US support for al-Qaeda in Syria (al-Nusra Front) from the earliest years of the war, and even said Qatar has "full documents" and records proving that the war was planned to effect regime change.


www.zerohedge.com...

The prime minister of Qatar when the syrian war started admits that he worked with the US to arm groups like al nursa at the start of the syrian war to oust Assad.

In other words, much like Gaddaffi, Assad was right and many of the "rebels" were actually terrorists being helped by the US.

Have you heard this on the news?

Now I grant that this prime minister could be lying. But isnt this news worthy?

Yet all of these anti war media people and others have no interest in this.

Why? Because they need a Russian boogey man.

This isnt saying Russia didnt interfere in the election, the most certainly at least attempted to (as did the UK, China, Israel, etc.)

But were are all of the anti war people? They said that Assad was lying; they said that the "rebels" the us was arming were natives of Syria that were just.

And now when the prime minister of Qatar admits thats not the case; no one talks about it.

remember when Trump said in the debates that he didnt understand why we were arming terrorists in syria, and we should work with the russians. All of those people of peace against war shouted NO!!! If we stop funding people in this war, we are bowing to Putin!

If Obama and Hillary did this, it must be cool.

I guess it just goes to show that war is only bad if a republican is doing it to many of these people.

Now be sure, there are great people on the left and right that call out all of this.

But for the rest, they want us to know.

"Bush lied, people died"

"Obama killed, we were thrilled"

Very well posted!!!
Amazing how quickly the "narrative" can change when the msm wants it to change.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




And drone strikes under Trump have quadrupled.

source please



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

of course not. his point is not about innocent deaths, as always, just butthurt at the press his party gets over others.

partisanship is a remarkable thing...



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Its more accurate to say that the reportage took a different tone.

Its not accurate to say that your man, woman or child in the street felt about these things, any differently under Obama than under Bush. By the time Libya and Syria had started to kick off, it was already patently obvious to those who keep abreast of the goings on in politics, that Mr Obama, for all the hype, was just another neoliberal (or more properly, a centre right, corporatist in the pocket of the same people who had been running the show under Bush and every cretin that came before him).

I suppose you could say that the only difference was that we were no longer surprised. We were surprised when a year in, he still had not shut down Guantanamo Bay, and just damned well released the individuals in the place, or forced congress to agree to keep them on U.S. soil (half or more of the people who are there, even now, probably shouldn't be, and would not be if they were put through a genuine court to establish guilt or innocence, and all of them are proxy agents of the CIA and other agencies anyway). We were shocked when his pullout from the Bush era wars was so bloody SLOW! But by the time Syria and Libya started up, we were incapable of being shocked, because things continued to happen under Obama's time in office, which made it clear that we should not expect from him, anything like the change that was necessary, that there was no hope to be had, that the corporatist machine would continue to turn, because he refused to galvinise either the people of the United States, or indeed the congress and senate thereof, against that corporate machinery.

If he had, if there had been some kind of revolutionary act, some kind of popular uprising against the players who set these illegal wars in motion, if he had of been determined enough, prepared to risk his own arse, as any good man would have, to slay the war machine in its tracks, and give the nation he lives in back to the people who should truly own it, then people would have been much more forgiving of him, I believe.

As it is though, most people are angry that he was not what he said he would be, no matter how much some may (not unreasonably, though it is sad to say) wish he was still in power, having seen all that the dumpster fire of a President the US has now, has managed to do with his time so far.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

You're gonna need to prove that. Obama drastically ramped up the drone strike program. For Trump to "quadruple" that would be totally insane.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well I called out just about all of the things you mention on trump, including his change in the Syrian war.

Including his connections to neocons and meeting people like Kissinger.

Including ramping up military bases around the world.

So what's your point?



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
But you have actually thought about scenarios where you would need to eliminate all trump supporters.

Yet you felt no such need to do that with war monger Obama's?



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

No, and here is why.

I never once heard an Obama supporter, a genuine Obama supporter from back in the day, when he had a movement, rather than an administration, suggest genocide or ethnic cleansing.

I heard that nonsense from the far right every day for two years though, right before your golden idiot got elected.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

U.S. Has Only Acknowledged A Fifth of Its Lethal Strikes, New Study Finds


Meanwhile, the drone program is intensifying. Since President Donald Trump took office earlier this year, the rate of drone strikes per month has increased by almost four times Obama’s average. Yemen in particular has been a target of many of these operations, with between nine and 11 strikes hitting the country this year, along with 81 other covert attacks by U.S. forces, according to statistics compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

The authors of the new report say that the government’s failure to provide information or legal rationales for its strikes is making it impossible to understand the full scope of the government’s targeted killing program, as well as its impact on civilians.


Drone Strikes Up 432 Percent Under Donald Trump


Since the inauguration of Donald J. Trump, drone strikes have increased over 400 percent.

As reported by Micah Zenko:

During President Obama’s two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days — one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 36 drone strikes or raids in 45 days — one every 1.25 days.


Trump Admin Ups Drone Strikes, Tolerates More Civilian Deaths: U.S. Officials


"Some of the Obama administration rules were getting in the way of good strikes," said one U.S. official briefed on the matter.

The Obama administration put in place a rule that no drone strike could take place outside a war zone unless there was a "near certainty" that no civilian would be harmed. Obama also put the White House in the decision loop on most strikes against high-value targets. And, outside a war zone, the military or the CIA had to show that the target posed an imminent threat to the United States.


Trump Administration Wants to Increase CIA Drone Strikes


The White House granted CIA officers more autonomy to decide on whether and when the U.S. can pull the trigger in various places around the world, including in Yemen, where the military carries out the bulk of the airstrikes, according to four U.S. officials who have been briefed on the agency's counterterrorism operations. The upshot is less micromanaging of targeting decisions by the White House, these officials say.


Trump Eases Combat Rules in Somalia Intended to Protect Civilians


Mr. Trump signed a directive on Wednesday declaring parts of Somalia an “area of active hostilities,” where war-zone targeting rules will apply for at least 180 days, the officials said.

The New York Times reported the Pentagon’s request for the expanded targeting authority on March 12, and Gen. Thomas D. Waldhauser, the top officer at Africa Command, publicly acknowledged that he was seeking it at a news conference last Friday.



Trump Poised to Drop Some Limits on Drone Strikes and Commando Raids


WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is preparing to dismantle key Obama-era limits on drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional battlefields, according to officials familiar with internal deliberations. The changes would lay the groundwork for possible counterterrorism missions in countries where Islamic militants are active but the United States has not previously tried to kill or capture them.

President Trump’s top national security advisers have proposed relaxing two rules, the officials said. First, the targets of kill missions by the military and the C.I.A., now generally limited to high-level militants deemed to pose a “continuing and imminent threat” to Americans, would be expanded to include foot-soldier jihadists with no special skills or leadership roles. And second, proposed drone attacks and raids would no longer undergo high-level vetting.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Thanks for the sources.


Source 1 you listed is only up until 2016 so none of that report is trump as he did not take office until 2017.
Source 2 you listed compares january 20 2017 through march 16 2017 ....do you always use sources with such a small sample size? That is a little disingenuous isn't it?
Source 3 is also only through march of 2017 and is anonymous and says nothing about the number of drones used only about policy. An anonymous persons opinion of a policy of 2 months is not really important is it?
Source 4 is another anonymous opinion piece with no number of drone strikes mentioned.
Sources 5 and 6 are behind a pay wall.

Your claim of "quadruple" with the sources you listed is bs.
edit on 31/10/2017 by shooterbrody because: need time to read the sources



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
idk man, i'm about as liberal as it gets in america and i never was happy about obama's war stuff. maybe you should check in with adults instead of college campuses for your validation.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Reading up on Trumps increased drone strikes, I also found this:


In a departure from Obama-era policy, the Pentagon will now no longer disclose how many US personnel are deploying to Iraq and Syria. Trump has also returned authority to conduct drone strikes to the CIA, which the Obama administration limited in the interest of transparency.

www.businessinsider.com...

More drone strikes, less transparency. Wow. But I'm sure Obama is still worse when it comes to drone strikes in some kind of way.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   
As an American who got visit more than one exotic far off land for lengthy periods, some of this post pissed me off.

To those defenders rearing up, it does not matter who was in the oval office when some one died, something blew up, or another country got a "visit" from Uncle Sam.

It's all the same trajectory. Same destination. The name in DC does not matter.

The OP hit on the observation some folks are only outraged when they do not like who is in office. I would agree.

If you really think D or R makes a difference, you are blind. If you want to call out what so and so did while they held the the office as a counter-argument, you are missing the plot.

Makes me wonder why I bothered.



posted on Oct, 31 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It is the exact same with privacy issues. Even person even remotely liberal was losing their minds over the Patriot Act and how violated they felt by this unneeded government interference. All of those same people were silent when Obama continued and expanded these 'privacy violations' which somehow weren't, because, Obama. I have never understood this.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join